Team of the Century

[calsnowskier]

But, to represent my bias...

3 in 5 (while literally being the underdog in all 9 series' as well as the WC game)

Bumgarner, Sandoval performances

4 trips to the dance, 3 wins

Coming back from 0-2 in the NLDS, then coming back from 1-3 in the NLCS the next week

 

[Clayton]

But, to represent my bias...

3 in 5 (while literally being the underdog in all 9 series' as well as the WC game)

Bumgarner, Sandoval performances

4 trips to the dance, 3 wins

Coming back from 0-2 in the NLDS, then coming back from 1-3 in the NLCS the next week

I have Bumgarner as the top performance. Giants are missing some sort of marquee win over the Dodgers in the playoffs (am I forgetting one?) and they are missing that scary powerhouse regular season dominance.

I think there is a good chance that the answer to this could change in a year or two as well. Although I imagine the Nationals will be the favorite next year.

 

[calsnowskier]

I have Bumgarner as the top performance. Giants are missing some sort of marquee win over the Dodgers in the playoffs (am I forgetting one?) and they are missing that scary powerhouse regular season dominance.

I think there is a good chance that the answer to this could change in a year or two as well. Although I imagine the Nationals will be the favorite next year.

The Giants have never faced the dogs in the playoffs, so they have no dramatic win against them. Not sure that can be a negative. The dogs have not been to the Series since '88. They are a non-factor. The Cards have not beaten the Cubs and I don't see that as a negative.

If you want to look at playoff head-to-head between the 3 monsters (sorry Yankees, I think you are clearly #4)...

SF v Bos: 0-0
SF v StL: 2-1
StL v Bos: 0-1

Boston over St Louis was epic due to the story of the curse getting broken.

San Francisco over St Louis in '12 was epic because of the comeback and the optics of the rain in game 7.

 

[calsnowskier]

The Giants have never faced the dogs in the playoffs, so they have no dramatic win against them. Not sure that can be a negative. The dogs have not been to the Series since '88. They are a non-factor. The Cards have not beaten the Cubs and I don't see that as a negative.

If you want to look at playoff head-to-head between the 3 monsters (sorry Yankees, I think you are clearly #4)...

SF v Bos: 0-0
SF v StL: 2-1
StL v Bos: 0-1

Boston over St Louis was epic due to the story of the curse getting broken.

San Francisco over St Louis in '12 was epic because of the comeback and the optics of the rain in game 7.

Make that "StL v Bos: 0-2"

Sorry

Edit:

Shit...

And "SF v StL: 3-0"...

I need to retread better

 

[Clayton]

The Giants have never faced the dogs in the playoffs, so they have no dramatic win against them. Not sure that can be a negative. The dogs have not been to the Series since '88. They are a non-factor. The Cards have not beaten the Cubs and I don't see that as a negative.

If you want to look at playoff head-to-head between the 3 monsters (sorry Yankees, I think you are clearly #4)...

SF v Bos: 0-0
SF v StL: 2-1
StL v Bos: 0-1

Boston over St Louis was epic due to the story of the curse getting broken.

San Francisco over St Louis in '12 was epic because of the comeback and the optics of the rain in game 7.

The STL team in '12 overachieved because the Nationals had injuries and the '14 team underachieved due to injuries on the Cardinals. '13 was all about pitching for the whole playoffs except for Ortiz being Babe Ruth in the World Series.

At this current moment, Id rank them 1) Red Sox, 2) Giants, 3) Cardinals, 4) Yankees but thats pretty fluid except for the Yankees being stuck at 4th. To the Yankees credit, if there was no Wild Card, they might still be seen as the Yankees of old.

 

[calsnowskier]

The STL team in '12 overachieved because the Nationals had injuries and the '14 team underachieved due to injuries on the Cardinals. '13 was all about pitching for the whole playoffs except for Ortiz being Babe Ruth in the World Series.

At this current moment, Id rank them 1) Red Sox, 2) Giants, 3) Cardinals, 4) Yankees but thats pretty fluid except for the Yankees being stuck at 4th. To the Yankees credit, if there was no Wild Card, they might still be seen as the Yankees of old.

Pretty much agree with everything here.

Without the WC, and assuming nothing happens to change this discussion outside of that, the Giants are only 2-0 in the Series since they where a WC team in both '02 and '14. A good run, but not in this discussion.

Honestly, I think any ranking of the top 3 is fair, but with a slight edge to SF and Boston.

 

[Clayton]

Honestly, I think any ranking of the top 3 is fair, but with a slight edge to SF and Boston.

Yeah. I consider the 2011 Cardinals to be their best team of the century as they finished the regular season 23-9 and beat the Phillies, Brewers and Rangers but that team also broke the record for number of double plays, had Wainwright out the whole friggin year, had Pujols out for a portion of the year, their pitching didnt get fixed until the Rasmus trade, and had Holliday out on the deciding game 7 of the World Series so thats not really a team that got to peak for a full season, either.

So there really isnt a marquee Cardinals team to put up there where I feel like you have a couple of Giants teams and a couple of Red Sox teams that were complete.

 

[calsnowskier]

Yeah. I consider the 2011 Cardinals to be their best team of the century as they finished the regular season 23-9 and beat the Phillies, Brewers and Rangers but that team also broke the record for number of double plays, had Wainwright out the whole friggin year, had Pujols out for a portion of the year, their pitching didnt get fixed until the Rasmus trade, and had Holliday out on the deciding game 7 of the World Series so thats not really a team that got to peak for a full season, either.

So there really isnt a marquee Cardinals team to put up there where I feel like you have a couple of Giants teams and a couple of Red Sox teams that were complete.

I disagree about the Giants teams being complete.

2010 was driven by epic, all-time pitching, and make-shift hitting.

2012 was probably the most balanced of the 3 championship teams, but not really "Elite" in any single category.

2014... Well, I am still trying to figure this one out. They had one super stud SP, a solid bully and a consistent lineup of all pesky bats.

2002 was probably the best team of the 4, but the manager was a sub-moron, so they failed to grab the bling.

 

[Montalban]

Its only about winning it all. Giants and Red Sox.

 

[Clayton]

I disagree about the Giants teams being complete.

2010 was driven by epic, all-time pitching, and make-shift hitting.

2012 was probably the most balanced of the 3 championship teams, but not really "Elite" in any single category.

2014... Well, I am still trying to figure this one out. They had one super stud SP, a solid bully and a consistent lineup of all pesky bats.

2002 was probably the best team of the 4, but the manager was a sub-moron, so they failed to grab the bling.

Baseball Reference had the Giants as the #1 Team in 2010 MLB Wins Above Average by position, they had near historic pitching IIRC, and the roster definitely matches the eye test. Thats absolutely a great team.

 

[calsnowskier]

Baseball Reference had the Giants as the #1 Team in 2010 MLB Wins Above Average by position, they had near historic pitching IIRC, and the roster definitely matches the eye test. Thats absolutely a great team.

I guess I am just to close, emotionally, to that team. I love the entire roster, but I only look at the pitching as being elite, and it was SUPER-ELITE. Timmeh, Cain, Bum and Sanchez was a gauntlet that could mow down the fiercest of line-ups.

Huff had a career year that earned him free dinners for life in SF. Unfortunately, the rest of his Giants career wasn't worthy of the water it would take to fully flush it down the drain.

2B, like both '12 and '14, was a wasteland before the savior came in Franchez. He was great in the two-ish years he actually played for us. The prob was that we paid him for 3.5 years.

SS was a wasteland until the Series when Rent decided to earn his entire 3-year contract all in a 1-week span.

3B was a wasteland until Uribe was finally given the job over Sandoval. Sandoval was absolute garbage that entire year.

The outfield was a wasteland surrounding Andres Torres. Burrell was a lightning-in-a-bottle, once-in-a-lifetime pickup... Until we picked up Cody Ross (AKA Ssory Doc). He had a NLCS for the ages, crushing the hearts if the Phillies by crushing Doc over and over.

Catcher was a source of strength, though. We started with the team captain, Bengie Molina, and finished with Posey. Not a bad handoff.

 

[Epic Voidfield]

My bias is probably showing here but I would rank them Giants, Sox, Cardinals, probably because the Giants got "more with less" in their lineup compared to Boston who probably had complete teams. As per Cal, still trying to figure out 2014 Giants 2012 felt more of a complete team than 2010. Sweeping the Tigers just seemed wrong but for the right reasons.

 

[obxyankeefan]

It depends on what your criteria are and if you consider 2000 part of the century.

Cardinals would be my choice

 

[calsnowskier]

It depends on what your criteria are and if you consider 2000 part of the century.

Cardinals would be my choice

Criteria is part of the debate.

I am going with a more strict interpretation, so 2000 is NOT included.

 

[obxyankeefan]

Criteria is part of the debate.

I am going with a more strict interpretation, so 2000 is NOT included.

OK. Now let me think about how to come up with a formula. IMO the formula should take everything including regular season into consideration, but award Titles the most.

I still think it will end up Cardinals.

 

[calsnowskier]

OK. Now let me think about how to come up with a formula. IMO the formula should take everything including regular season into consideration, but award Titles the most.

I still think it will end up Cardinals.

MilkSpiller had an equation earlier that was pretty decent (I am accepting his multipliers without argument, but I assume they could be tweaked).

Also, would playoff head-to-head matter in something like this? StL is 0-5 against the Giants and Sox in the post season. Is that a positive since they have so many opportunities, or is it a negative since they lost to the competition?

 

[MilkSpiller22]

MilkSpiller had an equation earlier that was pretty decent (I am accepting his multipliers without argument, but I assume they could be tweaked).

Also, would playoff head-to-head matter in something like this? StL is 0-5 against the Giants and Sox in the post season. Is that a positive since they have so many opportunities, or is it a negative since they lost to the competition?

Those should only be tie breakers... But in the actual calculation it should not matter who you played, because year to year all teams are different, and why should it help or hurt a teams WS win if they played a "LESSER" team...

All i care about the the regular season results and the playoff results, not the HOW...

 

[obxyankeefan]

Those should only be tie breakers... But in the actual calculation it should not matter who you played, because year to year all teams are different, and why should it help or hurt a teams WS win if they played a "LESSER" team...

All i care about the the regular season results and the playoff results, not the HOW...

Milk's formula is good, but I believe the regular season should be included in the discussion also. If you are talking about multi seasons, I just think everything should be considered.

What I have come up with is

regular season win = 1
WC or play in loss = 3
Division series loss = 10
LCS loss = 25
WS loss = 50
Title = 100

Now I just need to put in the stats.

 

[MilkSpiller22]

Milk's formula is good, but I believe the regular season should be included in the discussion also. If you are talking about multi seasons, I just think everything should be considered.

What I have come up with is

regular season win = 1
WC or play in loss = 3
Division series loss = 10
LCS loss = 25
WS loss = 50
Title = 100

Now I just need to put in the stats.

your formula is too WS based


And my formula did include the regular season

5 points- Regular season division title
3 points for WC
***new rule*** 1 point for WC, 2 points for WC play in game
_________________________________

10 points for League Championship
25 points for WS win

I don't think i would put any points anywhere else...

 

[calsnowskier]

I think 1 point for a reg season win is WAY too much. At most, I think 1/4 for a reg win, if anything at all.

I am also a fan of rewarding ROY, CY and MVP, MAYBE even Manager, but that award is kinda bunk, like GG.

1 pt for ROY
4 pt for CY
4 pt for MVP

1/2 pt for 163 loss
3 pt for div Title

1 pt for WC loss
3 pt for LDS loss
8 pt for LCS loss
20 pt for WS loss
50 pt for WS win

I think this may work. I would like to see how doing 1/4 for reg wins would affect it.